## Facts

- Maria Navarro received a warning that her estranged husband, Raymond Navarro, was coming to her home “to kill her and any others present.”
- Maria called 911 and reported the threat, stated she believed he was en route, and said he was subject to a restraining order (unknown to the dispatcher, the order had expired).
- The dispatcher told Maria to call back if her husband arrived and stated officers could not be sent to “wait and see”; no unit was dispatched.
- About fifteen minutes later, Raymond entered the home and shot and killed Maria and four others, injuring two.
- Maria’s relatives sued Los Angeles County and the Sheriff (official capacity) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a policy/custom of treating domestic-violence-related 911 calls as non-emergencies and thereby giving them lower priority than other emergency calls.
- The plaintiffs supported the asserted custom with, among other evidence, dispatcher testimony that in 1989 it was the practice not to classify domestic violence calls as “emergency procedure” calls.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims, including equal protection (policy/custom) and failure to train.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence of a municipal policy or custom that accorded lower priority to domestic-violence 911 calls, supporting § 1983 municipal liability and an equal protection violation.
2. Whether the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence that defendants were deliberately indifferent in training 911 dispatchers, causing a constitutional deprivation.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment ruling de novo.
- The court reversed summary judgment on the § 1983 equal protection claim premised on a policy/custom of downgrading domestic-violence 911 calls and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the failure-to-train claim and other non-equal-protection claims.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality is liable under § 1983 only when an official policy or a governmental custom causes the constitutional injury.
- A municipal “custom” can support liability even without formal approval through official channels.
- Isolated or random events are insufficient to prove custom; a custom may be shown through evidence of repeated constitutional violations that are tolerated (for example, where offending officials are not discharged or reprimanded).
- Municipal liability for a custom may exist even if policymakers lack actual knowledge of the specific practice.
- Failure-to-train liability requires deliberate indifference: the need for different or additional training must be so obvious, and the likely resulting constitutional violations so predictable, that policymakers can be charged with deliberate indifference.
- Selective refusal to provide or prioritize police protection can support an equal protection claim when it results from a discriminatory policy or custom, even though there is no general constitutional right to police protection.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that evidence of an ongoing dispatcher practice of treating domestic-violence 911 calls as non-emergencies created a triable issue on municipal custom and equal protection under § 1983, but the record did not support deliberate indifference necessary for failure-to-train liability.


Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 1995)